• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

Status
Not open for further replies.

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,744
52,542
Guam
✟5,134,186.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What you posted above is NOT TRUE. Wikipedia does not "mention it being deceptive" — quite the opposite!
Let's see for ourselves:
Wikipedia said:
A deceptive creator
In addition: I do not believe Adam had a navel.
Omphalos disgusts you because you think it equated to deception. You therefore invented "embedded age — maturity without history", because you were under this lazy misconception.
I did not invent Embedded Age --- my pastor, who has two doctorates, mentioned it in a sermon; and although he claims he is YEC, I have taken it from there.
Omphalos DOES NOT imply deception...
Every single atheist, agnostic, and even Christian I have talked to in the past three and a half years here would disagree with you.
... so you've wasted your time. Do some research next time.
Like I said, Gosse obviously hasn't convinced you, and he's surely not going to convince me.
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Today they do.

History didn't exist in Genesis 1.

And again, I don't believe that is the primary purpose of tree rings --- to show history.

I'm sure they have a biological function apart from demonstrating [alleged] passage of time.

As do navels.

So any comment, AV? Why this insistence to exclude embedded navels while allowing many other embedded age aspects, even when they violate the actual criterion you set down?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,744
52,542
Guam
✟5,134,186.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think the term "nonsense" would've been more fitting.
Judging something ahead of time like that is just going to create a blind spot in your mind that would require what's called conceptual blockbusting to remove.

You'll end up never understanding it, if you keep calling it nonsense ahead of time.

By way of example, I cannot grasp evolution.

To me, it is evil and from the devil.

And I believe that because of that, I cannot get the nuances of the philosophy down --- (and don't care to).
Seriously, though 'least hypotheses are based on reason and logic. There's absolutely no logic or reason involved in AV's nonsense.
Can you show logic behind the Trinity?

Is the Trinity therefore, 'nonsense'?
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,744
52,542
Guam
✟5,134,186.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So any comment, AV? Why this insistence to exclude embedded navels while allowing many other embedded age aspects, even when they violate the actual criterion you set down?
Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
That's a pity --- it'll keep you from being able to further understand Embedded Age.
I know that you will ignore anything that disagrees with you, but I´ll tell you now for the third time: you usage of that definition is a) circular and b) not fitting your usage.

If you want to state that, in order to "further understand Embedded Age", I have to accept something that is simply WRONG... well, that goes to show how "airtight" your system really is.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

Your defintion of "no scarring" in the OP is completely arbitrary. There is no reason at all to exclude "scars" from the possible signs of history.

Oh, sorry, I forgot one reason: you don´t like it. That´s a compelling reason, of course.
 
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟19,138.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

So are tree rings, really. They're a permanent visible effect on a body from a event that occured previously in history, which is what a scar is. And while we can speculate about Adam without ever knowing if he had a navel or not, we can see the tree rings that go back over 10,000 years. Maybe those trees in the garden did have ring and maybe they didn't, but at some point about 4000 years of fake history was created and inserted on the trees (if you are correct).
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.
Navels are scars of a specific process through which humans are born. The world shows the equivalent of scars or damage through volcanoes, earthquakes, meteorites, etc. Why would God create all the signs of being born and aging into the Earth but not the same signs for a human?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,744
52,542
Guam
✟5,134,186.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your defintion of "no scarring" in the OP is completely arbitrary.
Not, it's not --- I deem God's creation perfect --- thus no scars.
There is no reason at all to exclude "scars" from the possible signs of history.
I don't --- history is full of scars.

It's history I exclude.
Oh, sorry, I forgot one reason: you don´t like it. That´s a compelling reason, of course.
Attitude can keep you from learning as well.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,744
52,542
Guam
✟5,134,186.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.
Yes.
Wikipedia said:
The navel (also known colloquially as the belly button, or clinically as the umbilicus) is a scar on the abdomen, caused when the umbilical cord is removed from a newborn baby.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Not, it's not --- I deem God's creation perfect --- thus no scars.

This IS arbitrary. Scars don´t have anything to do with "perfection". Scars are - in the normal, non-embedded world - remnants of events. They are not different in that regard from tree rings or isotope ratios.

I have to wonder though... do you think that Jesus had a navel?
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

Maybe quote the entire post, instead of just one word, and analyse that point, ok?

And while you're at, maybe you can reconcile you claim that you don't exclude scars and proceed to exclude two scars for no other reason than sheer caprice.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,744
52,542
Guam
✟5,134,186.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Maybe quote the entire post, instead of just one word, and analyse that point, ok?
Ok.
No, they are remnants of a natural function, required for the process of growth, as are tree rings. Tree rings are old transport systems.
Yes.
Wikipedia said:
The navel (also known colloquially as the belly button, or clinically as the umbilicus) is a scar on the abdomen, caused when the umbilical cord is removed from a newborn baby.
 
Upvote 0

Mike Elphick

Not so new...
Oct 7, 2009
826
40
Nottingham, England
Visit site
✟23,749.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

This is disgraceful! How low can you get in three-word-quote mining!!! What follows in the Wikipedia article is an explanation for why Gosse DID NOT mean deception. You did nor read the extract.


You can believe and disbelieve whatever you want.


Yet you had it personally confirmed "by God". A much better authority than two PhD's — fallacious 'arguments from authority', both


Here's what Gosse himself thought about it:-



Oh, you're so wrong! To me the whole thing is obviously completely absurd, and I'm certainly not out to CONVINCE you, only to INFORM you.

On this particular subject, about which you pretend to be an expert, you're actually very much an amateur floundering in the dark
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,744
52,542
Guam
✟5,134,186.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
On this particular subject, about which you pretend to be an expert, you're actually very much an amateur floundering in the dark
I am not an expert on Omphalos, if that's what you meant.

I barely know it, and never heard of it until I came here three and a half years ago.

In any event, I'm not here to discuss Omphalos, Gosse, scars, imperfect tissue, or anything of that genre.

I'm here to take questions on Embedded Age Creation.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.